GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 251 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63030051 12-24-2011 10:38 AM JohanT wrote: (I am always tempted to write the German title :D) Go ahead, we'd know what you're talking about I think. I always want to call Nameless Monster Obluda. :) I could still be wrong about the cover - again, eye of the beholder. Decide for yourself when you see the color image. |
|
| VadaH Posts: 9 Registered: 12-23-2011 Message 252 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to KrillXIII - Message ID#: 56598798 12-25-2011 01:37 PM Hello everyone, It is nice to join this discussion, though I must warn you, I have never posted or participated in a form before, so if I screw up somehow just let me know. That aside, though I thanked her privately, I would like to thank Gina again for all her hard work. I must say that everyone seems to have put much more thought into this than I ever would have. Half way through reading the posts I felt like I should have been taking notes ;-) (plus I should re-read AM, I went through it so quickly the first time thanks to a misinformed troper). First, as promised, the full color Dorn cover Link I didn't notice it until yesterday, I got the art book way before I got AM. I don't even know where to begin, so I apologize for my randomness. In my opinion I think the final sketch is of Johan (and I don't think Weber knew what Johan looked like either. If you recall, at the very beginning the author states that most papers only refer to Johan as "J", if they papers are withholding his name, I find it unlikely that they would publish a photo. Plus, If Weber had asked for a photo during one of his many interviews, don't you think he would have mentioned it). As for the cousin idea, I think it is a bit far fetched, you would have to assume that jomama's twin was alive, had a male child around the same age as Johan, was as warped as Johan, and that Johan and this boy inherited all their genetics that make up their physical appearance from their mother (since I don't think that it is possible that they would have the same father). Here is a side by side comparison of the sketch and Johan's last awake appearance from the manga Link you decide. I like to think Urasawa was giving us a hint as to whether Johan had indeed awoken since the ending of Monster was so vague, the only problem I have with the sketch meaning that Johan was there is the fact that it was left behind. Johan is known for being very careful about not leaving behind any evidence of his existence, I find it hard to believe he missed it (unless he no longer cared about such things). The one thing I wondered about is the speculation of what, if Johan awoke, he would be like. Would returning his name and his sister's forgiveness really change him? While giving him back his name would indeed make it so that he was no longer a 'nameless monster', when you think it though logically, the mother had names for them, and even though she had been with them alone many time, she never used these names (I wonder how she called out to them). If at Johan's age he had been told that he had indeed had a 'real' name, would knowing that name really make a difference? If you had lived your entire life without a name, would being given one suddenly feel any less foreign or fake as all the other names he had used? Perhaps knowing that it is indeed a name selected just for him by his mother would help, but I don't think just getting a name would change any of the things that made him what he was. People don't change easily, and Johan had one hell of a history that shaped his personality (or lack thereof) and I believe it would take more than a name to overcome (the forgiveness helps since it is from his 'other half', but it would still take time, his feelings that he doesn't exist are practilly pathological, what he said to Nina/Anna after he shot the Lieberts, "But even if I die, it's ok. Because I am you and you are me...", is so sad, that kind history and those kind of beliefs are not easy to overcome). Some random fun: It was already posted that Johan means "god is gracious" , but interesting enough Anna means "gracious". I don't know if it was a coincidence (being Urasawa, probably not), since Wolf gave Johan his name from Nameless Monster, perhaps he also named Anna, with no knowledge of their mother's name, because of the similar meanings. I also happened to notice that in the quote from Revelations at the beginning of Monster omitted the part that talked about the fatal head injury. That is all for now, but here is some fun things: I was reading vol 18 of 20th Century boys and noticed something familiar about Fukube's wardrobe Link And here is what Gina asked me to post, my Nameless monster plush Link BTW, he is 31 inches tall. And if you are really bored follow this to see my Monster stuff Link Happy Holidays y'all. |
|
JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 253 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to VadaH - Message ID#: 63041969 12-25-2011 02:40 PM Merry Christmas everyone!! and hey there VadaH! I just came back from the theater, watching MIssion LAMPSHADE HANGING. And when the main villain guy said that stuff about how massive scale disaster was good for humanity and that nuclear war would be able to render that equally to everyone...I was like ... ... ... ........JOHAN! he's behind it all. Anyway back to Christmas festivities. (I will post a more thorough response to for ya'll, especially everything Vadah just posted) edit--and by the way, I have that little black Obluda book as well, and I just discovered that there is a continuation to the Weber incident in the back. Is it already translated somewhere? I'm trying to translate it now, but I'll need help. |
|
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 254 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63041969 12-25-2011 06:30 PM Yay! You made it! Welcome! I'm glad you made pictures of the construction process. Nice to see I'm not the only one. ;) Very cool. I think I'm saving comments for later. But I do feel my desperately grasping fingers slipping just a teeny bit. >.> @JJS: "MIssion LAMPSHADE HANGING" LOL! I just watched episode 18 of Mawaru Penguin Drum and kept hearing echoes of Monster there too ("I was the unneeded child." "The one standing here is the monster that consumed me from inside.") I can't help but think that that second line might've been a direct reference to Monster. |
|
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 255 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63042313 12-25-2011 06:36 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: edit--and by the way, I have that little black Obluda book as well, and I just discovered that there is a continuation to the Weber incident in the back. Is it already translated somewhere? I'm trying to translate it now, but I'll need help. Ironically, I just noticed that the other day myself when I was looking at it for Johan's name, and was thinking I'd have to translate a little bit just to see what it was about. But I haven't had any time to look at it more closely to see if it was worth doing. Since that was put out before Another Monster, I thought it might just be the translator's postscript from AM or something. Maybe I'll get some time to take a closer look later tonight or tomorrow. Right now I need to go make some supper before I keel over. :) And Happy Holidays everybody! All you guys showing up to post in this thread was just the best gift I could ask for! ::heart:: |
|
JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 256 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to VadaH - Message ID#: 63041969 12-25-2011 07:22 PM Hello VadaH! Yes, I think the case of Johan's "awakening" will remain a mystery, just like the man himself :). And this of course is if you believe he awoke or not ;). And I just noticed that everyone has started using "Johan" instead of "Johann" lol. Happy Holidays everyone! | |
TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 257 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to KrillXIII - Message ID#: 56598798 12-26-2011 01:34 AM Curse me and my laziness. I've been putting off replying because...VIDEO GAMES ARE ADDICTIVE, OKAY?!?!?! T_T ...Yeah, just wanted to exaggerate and be melodramatic there. So here we go again with addressing people... @JohanT: Well, if Fuhr is the dragon, I was thinking along these lines: "It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed." Johan was the beast, and as the dragon, Fuhr would would be "excercising Johan's authority" by taking on his role. ...Maybe. XD Perhaps this "unselfish love" is viewing people as human beings with identities of their own rather than simply ways of affriming yourself. ;) I honestly think that there is a human inside Johan. It's just been locked away within the monster. So instead of having a human with a monster inside him, you have a monster with a human inside it. So if a name is given, it would be given to the human. But metaphorically speaking, Johan would die, as Johan was simply a name given to a nameless monster in an attempt to make sense of it. Johan would no longer be Johan, but someone different. I actually haven't read Astro Boy. All I know about it comes from the internet and a game called Astro Boy: Omega Factor. I'm not sure if it goes as deep as I said. Just a thought. @Gina: Let's see...you're the one with the WMG that Johan has a cousin that looks similar to him, and you say I'm the one reading too much into things? :-D THERE'S UNTRANSLATED MATERIAL LEFT?!?!?! TRANSLATE NAO!!! LEAVE NO CHARACTER UNTURNED!!! *eye twitch* ...Sorry, more melodrama. Couldn't resist. But this could be something interesting. @VadaH: Welcome! And don't worry, you're doing fine! There's nothing to forums, just be yourself! ;) Yeah, it would be pretty interesting to know what Johan would be like after waking up. How would he react to Tenma saving him again? Also, I sometimes wonder what Johan would have been like if he had a normal life. I imagine he'd a slightly eccentric intellectual/philosophical type. Interesting that you bring up the scene where Johan asks Nina to shoot him. That made me wonder...although Johan refers to Nina as his "other half," could the way Johan feels about it be almost the opposite? Instead of Nina being the other half of Johan, could Johan view himself as a missing piece of Nina? Not his own person, but simply a fragment? ...To acknowledge that he is a seperate person from Nina might tear him up inside, after all, since he was chosen over her. But I think a part of him wishes it was the other way around, whicn is why he doesn't want to exist. I mentioned before that giving a name to something could entail inequality, since that would make things different but not necessarily equal. And in order to have a seperate identity, you must assert yourself against another. Johan didn't want to do that since he loved Nina so much. That desire to not exist for Nina's sake certainly got warped along the way, though... Wow! Amazing work! It looks like real merchandise! O_O I especially like the Kubrick Tenma! :D |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 258 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63048767 12-26-2011 04:55 AM | |
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 259 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63048767 12-26-2011 05:20 AM TophBeiFong wrote: @JohanT: Well, if Fuhr is the dragon, I was thinking along these lines: "It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed." Johan was the beast, and as the dragon, Fuhr would would be "excercising Johan's authority" by taking on his role. ...Maybe. XD :D Since I do not know anything about the Book of Revelation, I was unaware of this line! Thank you for bringing it up, it does change my point of view. It fits nicely into "Fuhr's" line regarding Johan stepping out of the Red Rose Mansion to greet him... So, I am being lazy, so please do excuse me, but is there anything in this biblical text that indicates a second rising of the first beast? Or does it merely point to a second beast, rising in its place? There is a possibility of both beasts being "Johan", if I were to go by my own theory of Johan awakening, and "becoming" Fuhr. And of course, this would tie in to my analysis of The Awakened Monster :D. Perhaps this "unselfish love" is viewing people as human beings with identities of their own rather than simply ways of affriming yourself. ;) Nicely said! In truth, it takes much not to proclaim that you are loved... I'm glad I have a theory on why Johan thinks so highly of Karl :D. Your definition fits him perfectly. I think it is interesting, while everyone goes by their real names in Karl's world, he himself goes by a fake name, a false identity. He does this purposefully, so as to allow everyone else a right to self and selfish desires. Hmm...could this be pointing out more? He is not only viewing others as separate people, but he is detracting from his own existence... Truly, what does taking on a false name through a choice of your own identify? I honestly think that there is a human inside Johan. It's just been locked away within the monster. So instead of having a human with a monster inside him, you have a monster with a human inside it. So if a name is given, it would be given to the human. But metaphorically speaking, Johan would die, as Johan was simply a name given to a nameless monster in an attempt to make sense of it. Johan would no longer be Johan, but someone different. Oh, no I do think there is a "human" side. However, I believe that the human is as much of a void as the monster is. A bundle of emotions and trauma, I like to call it. But no distinct personality. But the monster has personality, that much is clear. So which one will claim the name? By naming the monster, the act destroys it, and by naming the human...My original question (how I should have phrased it, at any rate) was whether the "human" was human enough to carry an identity. And if you name the human, will it destroy the monster? Haha, I am thinking of it in a very different way, I know. I see the two separately, because in my eyes, Johan truly does have "two" personalities (not in the mental sense :D)... | |
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 260 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63049065 12-26-2011 08:45 AM THERE'S UNTRANSLATED MATERIAL LEFT?!?!?! TRANSLATE NAO!!! LEAVE NO CHARACTER UNTURNED!!! *eye twitch* I'm almost done transcribing. But here is something that gives you the general gist of it and doesn't need translation:
And I believe it relates to whoever was buying all those sleeping monster books... |
|
| VadaH Posts: 9 Registered: 12-23-2011 Message 261 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63049065 12-26-2011 07:37 PM Very interesting ideas about the Johan/monster/name mess, I, however, do not see them separately, they are just different aspects of the same person. There is no monster per se, just a human who behaves in a way that most others would define as monstrous (and the psychological state that leads to such behavior cannot just disappear). I have considered asking my husband (a psychologist that works with forensic patients, and a very strict behaviorist) his view on the psychological aspects of Monster (I am still working on getting him to just watch the series), but I am afraid his will dismiss it all as nonsense (but if I do get him to watch it, I will ask and let you all know what he says, he's really good with those kinds of things). |
|
| VadaH Posts: 9 Registered: 12-23-2011 Message 262 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63048767 12-26-2011 07:44 PM Missing piece, that would make sense, or maybe even the same person seeing no differentiation between them. Either way it is certainly messed up. I have tired to imagine Johan living a normal life, several times, and it never seems to work for me, half because he was just too good as a bad guy and half because he is just too creepy (even when he's being all nice and sincere. It's probably just because I have never seen him being anything but creepy) ;-). |
|
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 263 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to VadaH - Message ID#: 63053987 12-26-2011 09:00 PM He wasn't creepy while he was telling Schuwald about the scenery. He only got creepy after he was done. ;) |
|
| VadaH Posts: 9 Registered: 12-23-2011 Message 264 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63054825 12-27-2011 12:13 PM Perhaps, but after a while that constant dissonant serenity smile he has starts to look creepy all the time (I mean have you tried to smile like that all the time, it gets pretty tiring) :p On another note, I was thing about the whole 'so who is the other monster' thing you mentioned earlier. I agree that Johan wouldn't make any sense (whether you think he was there or not), I guess we would have to define the qualifications of this "other" monster and see who fits it. Like, is the "other" monster simply the one responsible for killing Carek and manipulating Kottmann into killing the witnesses? Or is there more to it? What do you think? |
|
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 265 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to VadaH - Message ID#: 63059925 12-26-2011 03:07 PM Despite the fact that Führ fits the description in the second Revelations verse, that verse wasn't included in the book, so while it's fascinating, it may not be relevent. Still, it could refer to him, as far as I can remember, nothing rules that out. He doesn't quite seem evil enough to me though. And he's old. :) Speaking of which, I'm thinking he might've been the one the Gang of Four were originally gathering around when Johan was still a child. Can't think of any other candidates, and Urasawa raised the question, so I imagine it has an answer. |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 266 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to VadaH - Message ID#: 63053891 12-27-2011 07:46 PM VadaH wrote: Very interesting ideas about the Johan/monster/name mess, I, however, do not see them separately, they are just different aspects of the same person. There is no monster per se, just a human who behaves in a way that most others would define as monstrous (and the psychological state that leads to such behavior cannot just disappear). I have considered asking my husband (a psychologist that works with forensic patients, and a very strict behaviorist) his view on the psychological aspects of Monster (I am still working on getting him to just watch the series), but I am afraid his will dismiss it all as nonsense (but if I do get him to watch it, I will ask and let you all know what he says, he's really good with those kinds of things). Oh yes, he is most certainly a human who behaves monstrously :D. But in order for the monster to be destroyed, it must be separated from the human. And in the end, which one will end up dying? The weak "human" (I truly hesitate to call it that) or the powerful monster? The powerful monster will die once given a name, but what will be accomplished because of the weakness of the human side? Can it still develop, or is it truly too late? The reason I have this rather peculiar view is because of the final scene between Johan and Tenma, in which Johan attempts a suicide by cop. He is forgiven, shown love and sympathy, but he states that they "can't turn back now". What does this indicate? If Johan was forgiven as a child, it is implied that change would have occured, perhaps not truly as a human being, but as an accepted part of his sister, still not properly seeing the two of them as different beings. However, this forgiveness is rejected in the end... What could this mean for Johan? Is the monster too far gone, enough to supress the weak human side? And is the weak human side unable to develop, as it has been crushed beneath the monster for such a long time? Are the identities now meshed as a result? Can the human no longer identify itself without the monster? :( Sadly, I think this is how he views it. And as a result, the "ultimate" form of love (going back to the interpretation of "two loves") is the sacrificing of your own existence in the name of those you care for, giving up the potential of "becoming" human. Just as Karl does, altough in a more disturbing way :D. Oh, could this be another parallel? | |
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 267 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63065395 12-28-2011 09:19 AM Hmm, I just thought of something else that ties into my thoughts about "the monster and the human". Do any of you recall how Schuwald described Johan as "a man completely at peace with himself"? How can there be peace within if a monster and a human make up the being? Such opposing concepts would be constantly warring with one another. Unless, of course, there is peace simply because there is nothing to be at peace with? With this in mind, I think that the "human" side had surrendered long ago, and paved the way for the monster, who, because it is a monster, can find peace in only its own existence. Truly, there is no such thing, in our world, as a human being at peace with him/herself. Unless they are made up of only one driving force, or none at all. I am of the mind that Johan fits the latter... | |
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 268 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63065395 12-28-2011 09:27 PM About what Johan would have been like if he wasn't a monster--I don't think he could have lived a "normal" life either way. He is way too capable and ambitious, he would have made it to the top of society, no doubt. His intellectual insight might have lead him back into isolation and depression, despite his accomplishments. Even if he and Nina were treated the same, it seems that he still has more innate intelligence than she does. He could never be normal. At the end he was also probably beyond the point of forgiveness. When Tenma told him his given name, he might have just thought "Oh, I used that name on several occassions." I think that any change of heart would completely cripple his sanity. Johan might think of himself as a martyr for Nina. He took the bullet of evil so to speak, so that the monster is in him and not in her. He would then view Nina as the part of himself that could live a normal life. But then, that wouldn't explain why he didn't let her live a happy life. Okay, so I think the Revelation verse about the beast is actually a good illustration for the nature of the Monster. It has many heads, but they are all just tools. It's like a hydra, chop one off one head and two more pop up. The underlying monster, though, is something not so easily pinned down. I would say it is Nihilism: From my perspective, The Sleeping Monster echoes Nietzsche's "God is dead" rant. When you pull the religious carpet from under people, and they all of a sudden lose their basis for morality, values, etc, then you leave them in a existential vacuum where they don't know what to believe anymore. This is when they'd be particularly susceptible to ideological brainwashing (The monster manipulates them while they are lost and asleep). But if that ideology is false... :-( I also found this Australian short story that has uncanny parallels to the Awakening Monster. A boy, is loved by everyone, falls asleep in the wilderness and becomes lost. At one point he comes to believe he's back at home, but then wakes up as if he'd been only dreaming about the happy boy he was. Still in the woods, he finds a sleeping figure of a boy in pain, and he realizes it is himself, and that he is still Lost. "His little soul was weighed down by the nameless terror of a solitude which was no solitude,—but a silence teeming with monsters." He basically descends into despair, and finally, forgets his own existence. It's a bit disturbing. (it's called Pretty **noel** by Marcus Clarke) But I wonder if in the Awakening Monster, when the youth calls out his name, it's not that he realizes he is the most loved, but he suddenly realizes how LOST he is? |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 269 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63071837 12-28-2011 09:54 AM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: About what Johan would have been like if he wasn't a monster--I don't think he could have lived a "normal" life either way. He is way too capable and ambitious, he would have made it to the top of society, no doubt. His intellectual insight might have lead him back into isolation and depression, despite his accomplishments. Even if he and Nina were treated the same, it seems that he still has more innate intelligence than she does. He could never be normal. At the end he was also probably beyond the point of forgiveness. When Tenma told him his given name, he might have just thought "Oh, I used that name on several occassions." I think that any change of heart would completely cripple his sanity. You know, I had always thought that Johan had awoken before Tenma had the chance to say his true name. Almost as if he refused to hear it, for reasons that may be indicated in The Awakened Monster. As it is, the name of "the one most loved" shook the monster from its sleep... Similarily, it could be seen in the opposite way. The name was said aloud, and the monster (Johan) awoke once again... I too cannot imagine Johan living a normal life. But that may be because of his current predicament. His mindset is not truly that of a human, and that fact hinders us from seeing what he could have become had he been raised differently. I do agree that his intellect is substantially high regardless of his "lessons", and he would no doubt put it to use. But how much of his "ambition" and "goals" are truly his own? This relates back to my theory of the monster triumphing over the human. How different would Johan be if there was no "Obluda" present in his mind? Unimaginably different, I would say. Johan might think of himself as a martyr for Nina. He took the bullet of evil so to speak, so that the monster is in him and not in her. He would then view Nina as the part of himself that could live a normal life. But then, that wouldn't explain why he didn't let her live a happy life. Perhaps this is an instance where Johan is displaying some selfish desires? Perhaps he too wants to share this life of normalcy, and therefore he seeks to become one with his other half. Also, remember that Johan's way of showing gratitude/love is in the form of creating a memory of himself in another human being. He kills all those around this person, until he is the only one who remembers them, and until they can remember none but him. It happened with Wolf, Tenma, and Nina. A strange form of clinginess, maybe? :D The way he may interpret happiness may actually be a very unselfish method. He does not seem to care if others despise him. The memory itself is enough to justify his importance in the minds of others. Okay, so I think the Revelation verse about the beast is actually a good illustration for the nature of the Monster. It has many heads, but they are all just tools. It's like a hydra, chop one off one head and two more pop up. The underlying monster, though, is something not so easily pinned down. I would say it is Nihilism: From my perspective, The Sleeping Monster echoes Nietzsche's "God is dead" rant. When you pull the religious carpet from under people, and they all of a sudden lose their basis for morality, values, etc, then you leave them in a existential vacuum where they don't know what to believe anymore. This is when they'd be particularly susceptible to ideological brainwashing (The monster manipulates them while they are lost and asleep). But if that ideology is false... :-( That is a very interesting connection you have made. I am also familiar with Nietzsche's "rant" :D. In my eyes, no ideology is "false". Either none are false, or all are false. But that is going very much off topic, isn't it? :) I also found this Australian short story that has uncanny parallels to the Awakening Monster. A boy, is loved by everyone, falls asleep in the wilderness and becomes lost. At one point he comes to believe he's back at home, but then wakes up as if he'd been only dreaming about the happy boy he was. Still in the woods, he finds a sleeping figure of a boy in pain, and he realizes it is himself, and that he is still Lost. "His little soul was weighed down by the nameless terror of a solitude which was no solitude,—but a silence teeming with monsters." He basically descends into despair, and finally, forgets his own existence. It's a bit disturbing. (it's called Pretty **noel** by Marcus Clarke) But I wonder if in the Awakening Monster, when the youth calls out his name, it's not that he realizes he is the most loved, but he suddenly realizes how LOST he is? Hmm, I must now go find this story :D. But, from what you have said, it seems that the point at which he is truly "lost" is when he forgets his quest to awaken the monster. Can solitude be interpreted as being lost? I am not sure, but I feel those in solitude are in a box rather than in a wood, if you know what I mean. The boy finds a vision of himself in pain, but, as you say, he is in solitude without actually being in solitude...he has the monster, now that it has risen from sleep. But the monster only enhances the feeling of solitude, though it sits beside you, as though you were not alone. Delusions, maybe? So I think what you said about nihilism is very much on point, with regards to this. | |
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 270 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63049297 12-28-2011 11:02 AM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: I'm almost done transcribing. But here is something that gives you the general gist of it and doesn't need translation:
And I believe it relates to whoever was buying all those sleeping monster books... Check your PMs. :) I don't think it needs a spoiler at this point. But if you, Gentle Lurker, think it does, don't read further... Thinking about this some more, I don't think it's connected to that group. There are two things I find odd about that blurb. Whoever paid a great sum for the sketches was about to burn them? But then was willing to see them published? oO If they were about to destroy them but were ok with them being reproduced, why not just sell them and recoup the investment, instead of letting them "borrow" them? I'm thinking it was one of the principle characters, like Nina or Lunge, although I don't know why any of them other than Nina or Tenma would be determined to keep their ownership of it secret. Rudy would've published it himself! They might've bought them for personal reasons, then decided they wanted to just burn it all and put it behind them, but were convinced to let it go public by "Urasawa/Takahashi/Shogakukan." That would maybe explain why they didn't just sell it to them, not wanting to take any money for this. Maybe it's Führ's editor Kiener. :) He hoped to publish them, and failed, but thought the new publicity might create a market for them. ;) |
|
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 271 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63071965 12-28-2011 03:25 PM JohanT wrote: You know, I had always thought that Johan had awoken before Tenma had the chance to say his true name. Almost as if he refused to hear it, for reasons that may be indicated in The Awakened Monster. As it is, the name of "the one most loved" shook the monster from its sleep... Similarily, it could be seen in the opposite way. The name was said aloud, and the monster (Johan) awoke once again... I think the shot to the window and the wind blowing shows some passage of time in which the name was said, but I could be wrong. I too cannot imagine Johan living a normal life. But that may be because of his current predicament. His mindset is not truly that of a human, and that fact hinders us from seeing what he could have become had he been raised differently. I do agree that his intellect is substantially high regardless of his "lessons", and he would no doubt put it to use. But how much of his "ambition" and "goals" are truly his own? This relates back to my theory of the monster triumphing over the human. How different would Johan be if there was no "Obluda" present in his mind? Unimaginably different, I would say. Here I am more in line with VadaH in that Johan's monster isn't a literal separate entity, but it's just used as a literary term to deconstruct his character, which is essentially very human. I mean, real people have done things that he has and worse, yet they are still human. Perhaps this is an instance where Johan is displaying some selfish desires? Perhaps he too wants to share this life of normalcy, and therefore he seeks to become one with his other half. Also, remember that Johan's way of showing gratitude/love is in the form of creating a memory of himself in another human being. He kills all those around this person, until he is the only one who remembers them, and until they can remember none but him. It happened with Wolf, Tenma, and Nina. A strange form of clinginess, maybe? :D The way he may interpret happiness may actually be a very unselfish method. He does not seem to care if others despise him. The memory itself is enough to justify his importance in the minds of others. I thought his expression of love was to erase himself completely? His isolating Wolf, Tenma, and Nina seemed to be him trying to get them to understand the isolation that he felt, in a misery-loves-company sort of way. That is a very interesting connection you have made. I am also familiar with Nietzsche's "rant" :D. In my eyes, no ideology is "false". Either none are false, or all are false. But that is going very much off topic, isn't it? :) I have a couple professors who grew up in communist Cuba and Soviet Russia who would vehemently disagree with 'no ideology is false.' But "false" might be the wrong word. More like "a system that just doesn't work and makes everyone miserable." But yeah, that's a another debate entirely, though it isn't completely separate from Monster considering its historical setting. Hmm, I must now go find this story :D. But, from what you have said, it seems that the point at which he is truly "lost" is when he forgets his quest to awaken the monster. Can solitude be interpreted as being lost? I am not sure, but I feel those in solitude are in a box rather than in a wood, if you know what I mean. The boy finds a vision of himself in pain, but, as you say, he is in solitude without actually being in solitude...he has the monster, now that it has risen from sleep. But the monster only enhances the feeling of solitude, though it sits beside you, as though you were not alone. Delusions, maybe? So I think what you said about nihilism is very much on point, with regards to this. The boy was lost and alone because the townspeople failed to find him, and nature, the stars, and God are unresponsive to his cries for help. The reason he dissociated with his body was a "temporary" attempt to escape his pain. I can definitely see Johan in this. OH--and I just remembered Tenma's flashback to when he was a kid yelling "Find me!" That seems to fit well with the theme. |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 272 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63075681 12-28-2011 04:21 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: JohanT wrote: I think the shot to the window and the wind blowing shows some passage of time in which the name was said, but I could be wrong. I don't think there's a wrong answer. Here I am more in line with VadaH in that Johan's monster isn't a literal separate entity, but it's just used as a literary term to deconstruct his character, which is essentially very human. I mean, real people have done things that he has and worse, yet they are still human. Hmm, you see, Johan's "monstrosity" does not stem from his acts, in my eyes. Otherwise, everyone is/could become a monster (which is a very inhuman term. How can we define humanity if it is in close range with inhumanity?) His nonexistent, supernatural "life" is what seems monstrous. He lives as no other human does, he seeks what no other human seeks, and he is seemingly empty of greed, desire, fear, ego, hatred, etc. His very existence is what drives me to deem him a "monster". As you say, can we call all murderers "monsters"? I am not sure, but in one chapter in the manga, a man who had murdered many people described Johan as a real "monster", saying that he could never be what Johan has become. I believe that this statement is very important. There is a profound difference, in my opinion. Which is why I believe that "monster", being such a fearsome word, is something much, much more difficult to define, and much more difficult for a common human to vanquish. This is the reason why I believe that the struggle in Johan is not as simple as giving him a name, removing his status as a "nameless monster", and voila, the human is released from the bonds. The monster has been festering within for too long. I thought his expression of love was to erase himself completely? His isolating Wolf, Tenma, and Nina seemed to be him trying to get them to understand the isolation that he felt, in a misery-loves-company sort of way. Maybe. What I said before was my personal interpretation. I definitely agree with your view, but I thought that Johan was also demonstrating more. With Johan's death, all memories of personal existence would be erased as well. I have a couple professors who grew up in communist Cuba and Soviet Russia who would vehemently disagree with 'no ideology is false.' But "false" might be the wrong word. More like "a system that just doesn't work and makes everyone miserable." But yeah, that's a another debate entirely, though it isn't completely separate from Monster considering its historical setting. My parents grew up in communist Czechoslovakia, and I think they would agree with your professors. However, as I was born much after the end of communism in the Czech Republic, I cannot give any personal details that revolve around experience. However, to claim that an ideology can be false is also to imply that there are those that are true... It is a personal debate, one is true for one but is false for another. Which is why I cannot view it with such words. But, as you say, there are better ways of describing it. But even then, I cannot say that a single system will make "everyone" miserable... But never mind, I digress. I probably shouldn't be talking, seeing as I truly know nothing about living under such ideologies. Sorry :D. The boy was lost and alone because the townspeople failed to find him, and nature, the stars, and God are unresponsive to his cries for help. The reason he dissociated with his body was a "temporary" attempt to escape his pain. I can definitely see Johan in this. OH--and I just remembered Tenma's flashback to when he was a kid yelling "Find me!" That seems to fit well with the theme. I think that I will have to read this story before I give you more opinions :D. Otherwise, I'm probably going to misunderstand everything. | |
| VadaH Posts: 9 Registered: 12-23-2011 Message 273 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63076237 12-28-2011 08:58 PM Yeah, I am with JohanT on this one, the term "monster" in Monster is used metaphorically, not literally or supernaturally (besides, the term itself means more than just some abnormal inhuman entity, it can also mean (from Merriam-Webster dictionary) "one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character", or "a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty".). Even Johan uses the term to describe Bonaparta (in addition to the term being used multiple time in reference to other characters, most, if not all, rightly deserved). While other "monsters" may have viewed Johan as something more than themselves, that is because he was better at it than they were (since he probably manipulated and mind raped them), not because he was something truly inhuman. |
|
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 274 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63076237 12-30-2011 03:16 PM Hmm, you see, Johan's "monstrosity" does not stem from his acts, in my eyes. Otherwise, everyone is/could become a monster (which is a very inhuman term. How can we define humanity if it is in close range with inhumanity?) His nonexistent, supernatural "life" is what seems monstrous. He lives as no other human does, he seeks what no other human seeks, and he is seemingly empty of greed, desire, fear, ego, hatred, etc. His very existence is what drives me to deem him a "monster". As you say, can we call all murderers "monsters"? But then what do you think of Bonaparta telling Nina that "Human beings can become anything, which is why you musn't become monsters" ? That's a very important point in the story---the potential of an ordinary person to become a monster. To me, the term inhumanity is a word used to avoid the fact that so called "inhuman" acts are in fact very human, what else would they be? We just don't like to think people are capable of certain things. Johan does stand out as a extreme, archetypal symbol of such monstrosity, but what he stands for is something that can exist in normal people, though perhaps not to that degree. I am not sure, but in one chapter in the manga, a man who had murdered many people described Johan as a real "monster", saying that he could never be what Johan has become. I believe that this statement is very important. There is a profound difference, in my opinion. Which is why I believe that "monster", being such a fearsome word, is something much, much more difficult to define, and much more difficult for a common human to vanquish. This is the reason why I believe that the struggle in Johan is not as simple as giving him a name, removing his status as a "nameless monster", and voila, the human is released from the bonds. The monster has been festering within for too long. I agree with that last part, the monstrous part of a person is something developed over time and becomes a part of them that can't be magically cured. Johan being called a "real monster" I think is just admiration for the greatness Johan has achieved. He's a "bigger monster" than most. I see Johan's monstrosity as more symbolic than literal. He's an archetypal character of evil, but that sort of evil isn't paranormal, but concentrated into one character. My parents grew up in communist Czechoslovakia, and I think they would agree with your professors. However, as I was born in '93, much after the end of communism in the Czech Republic, I cannot give any personal details that revolve around experience. However, to claim that an ideology can be false is also to imply that there are those that are true... It is a personal debate, one is true for one but is false for another. Which is why I cannot view it with such words. But, as you say, there are better ways of describing it. But even then, I cannot say that a single system will make "everyone" miserable... But never mind, I digress. I probably shouldn't be talking, seeing as I truly know nothing about living under such ideologies. Sorry I look at things through a kind of William James pragmatism, so what's true or false depends on results. But back to the original point: the people who lost their names and fell asleep, thus letting their mental guard down, were lied to in such a way that caused them extreme resentment. Whatever religion, idea, social system etc etc that could cause that to happen to people is the kind of lie or falsehood I am referring to. |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 275 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63098715 12-30-2011 04:12 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: But then what do you think of Bonaparta telling Nina that "Human beings can become anything, which is why you musn't become monsters" ? That's a very important point in the story---the potential of an ordinary person to become a monster. To me, the term inhumanity is a word used to avoid the fact that so called "inhuman" acts are in fact very human, what else would they be? We just don't like to think people are capable of certain things. Johan does stand out as a extreme, archetypal symbol of such monstrosity, but what he stands for is something that can exist in normal people, though perhaps not to that degree. I agree with all that you have said, and I think that we have misunderstood each other's arguments :D. I should have been clearer with my stance, I apologize. You see, there is no such thing as a "monster". Monster defines the inhuman, as I stated before, but the only reason Johan is seen as such, as you state, is because his supposed "monstrosity" appears to be at a greater level. However, my main point was that his actions themselves are not what depict the monster within (though there is no such thing). I personally believe that Johan's monstrosity is not something that can be accomplished by a normal human being. To be empty of all that which forms a human is what makes up the being we call "Johan". I suppose, to sum it all up, the term "monster" is not at all applicable to humanity. And I do not think that Johan is seen as a beast simply because of his murders. I strongly believe that his outlook on the world, and his position over humanity, is what compels others to label him as such. The word has such negative connotations, but is it truly negative, or is it the fear of something existing beyond human limitations? I am not saying that Johan is a monster. Quite the contrary, I am merely talking about how others in the story view him. Bonaparta saw himself as a monster, but is he really? Could the monster arise simply because one believes himself to be one? I think this is the sad truth. I agree with that last part, the monstrous part of a person is something developed over time and becomes a part of them that can't be magically cured. Johan being called a "real monster" I think is just admiration for the greatness Johan has achieved. He's a "bigger monster" than most. I see Johan's monstrosity as more symbolic than literal. He's an archetypal character of evil, but that sort of evil isn't paranormal, but concentrated into one character. Oh, yes, it is most definitely symbolic. There is no literal sense to the word "monster". What I am trying to get at primarily is that the "monster" within (it need not truly be there, however, if Johan believes that it is, then, in a subjective sense, it is) has crushed the human side of Johan... From the time he was born, he was a nameless being, an imitation of his twin, the nonexistent one. And then, after being given a name, he became the "nameless monster" (how ironic :D). I suppose, what I truly mean by the whole "monster crushing the human within" and the "human side not being able to identify itself without the monster" business, is that Johan does not know, nor has he ever known, how to be human. | |
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 276 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to KrillXIII - Message ID#: 56598798 01-02-2012 06:20 AM Way for me to put off posting again. I guess having more people here than usual is making me a little overwhelmed, so I kinda sorta want to avoid it. ^_^U (That, and I've been playing Dragon Quest VI...) Anyway, here we go again! @VadaH It would be interesting to try to get your husband to watch this show/read the manga. Maybe you can persuade him by saying that he could make fun of whatever inaccurcies there may be? (I know using hypnotism and the entire concept of having repressed memories are both questionable, for instance.) Yet one aspect that is quite realistic is Johan mistaking Nina's memories for his own. False memories are a very real phenomenon. Though I think telling him about that could be spoiling the story a little, even if it's just mentioning the fact that it incorporates the idea. And I'm currently a psych major myself, so it would be interesting to see what he would have to say. ^_^ @JJS & Gina My first thought that it could have been Schuwald, since he would certainly have the money for it, or that Tenma and/or Nina asked Schuwald for the money. Yet something tells me that it doesn't seem likely. Hmm...maybe it was actually Johan himself? That would be pretty crazy! XD ...Or what if it was Jomama? Or Johan's hypothetical cousin? Heck, it could really be anybody! @JohanT Hmm...you do have a point about the human part being...underdeveloped, I guess that would be the word for it. But no one said that the healing process would be easy. I was thinking more along the lines of destroying the monster allowing the human a chance to build up. Of course, this could fail to happen and actually leave Johan as an empty shell...or at least even more of an empty shell. @Everyone Okay, I think I will finally talk about that thing I was going to talk about but never really got around to. :P Bascially, it's sort of about the dynamic between Tenma and Johan, and I think it's actually relevant a lot that has been brought up. I'm not going to be specific, though, but if someone points out how this relates to something they said, then the response will likely be "Yes, I probably had that in mind at one point while preparing this response." Anyway, I want to start out with the individuality/equality conflict. I think Tenma's beliefs were trying to reconcile this conflict. His belief is that all lives are equal, but he also seems to respect other people's individuality and let them be themselves. He likely believed that people are fine as who they are regardless as how others define them, and that those definitions are, in fact, irrelevant. What matters is how you define yourself, not how others define you. Everyone is an individual, and every individual is just as precious and valuable as the next one. Tenma himself seems to live this way, as his beliefs are a huge part of his identity and they came not from those around him, but from something he chose for himself. So for Tenma people may be different, but they are all equals. Names do not create inequality for him. ...And all of this is why he is so alone, since not many people think the way he thinks. ;) Johan, however, is a threat to this belief system, and by extension, a threat to Tenma's very identity. It sort of goes with the paradox of tolerance: Can a person who identifies himself as tolerant tolerate intolerance? Or to be more applicable to Tenma: How can a person who believes that all lives are equal stand against someone who is a threat to that equality without downgrading that person? And thus we have the problem of someone having to dominate over another in order to maintain his identity, but in the process actually destroying it. Tenma's sense of self is put into question, and no matter what decision he makes, he's screwed. Either Johan dominates over him or he dominates over Johan. Either way, he is destroying himself. And Johan exploits that to hell and back. Okay, I said I wasn't going to be specific, but I'll go ahead bring this up. JohanT mentioned that Johan respected Karl because he didn't see people as ways to define himself. I think that's a major part of why he respects Tenma. Yet Tenma is a bit of an odd case, as just as Johan's identity is based in not having an identity, Tenma defines himself through others by not viewing others as ways to define himself. Oh the paradoxes! XD Johan, I believe, thinks that Tenma as well as everyone else around him are deluding themselves, and that achieving namelessness for everyone is an odd, twisted sort of mercy in his view. While he tries to undermine the identities of everyone, he only tries to get a select few to truly understand what he is trying to achieve, such as Wolfe and Tenma. He probably feels that only they are worthy because they had the kindness to save him, and he sort of appreciates it, but rejects the idea that he, and the world, can be saved. It's kind of sad, really... There might be a little more I want to bring up later, but that's the gist of it. ...I really need more confidence in myself, but I'm always a bit unsure that I can get everything out the way I wanted. But I think this turned out decent. ^_^ |
|
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 277 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63128693 01-11-2012 04:24 AM Hello? Anyone in here? *throws rock down bottomless pit* Anyway, I just wanted to bring up another thought I had. And maybe bump this thread... If monsters don't exist, then perhaps Johan wanted to become a monster as a part of his plan for erasing his existence? He would be becoming something entirely fictional, transcending existence itself... |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 278 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63128693 01-11-2012 02:34 PM TophBeiFong wrote: Sorry, Toph :D. Haven't been online for a while now. Exams are currently taking place in school, so I have not had time. *takes rock from bottomless pit* You won't be needing this anymore :). Bottomless pit is no longer bottomless. @JohanT Hmm...you do have a point about the human part being...underdeveloped, I guess that would be the word for it. But no one said that the healing process would be easy. I was thinking more along the lines of destroying the monster allowing the human a chance to build up. Of course, this could fail to happen and actually leave Johan as an empty shell...or at least even more of an empty shell. Yes, well said. When I spoke about Johan's inability to heal, I believe I also brought up the point that an empty shell is specifically what Johan is, and what he will continue to be, even if he were to release the human. If both the monster and the human are black holes of worthless space, then destroying one will not truly destroy the fabric of its nature, for there is another residing behind it. And destroying both will, in fact, only lead to a larger absence of self. If we were to go by the scenario of Johan staying nameless through choice, what do you think triggered this decision? Is it truly to isolate his existence even further, by claiming himself to be a truly irredeemable figure, or is it fear of becoming even more of a void? I thought, personally, that such a decision on Johan's part would incorporate both aspects. @Everyone Anyway, I want to start out with the individuality/equality conflict. I think Tenma's beliefs were trying to reconcile this conflict. His belief is that all lives are equal, but he also seems to respect other people's individuality and let them be themselves. He likely believed that people are fine as who they are regardless as how others define them, and that those definitions are, in fact, irrelevant. What matters is how you define yourself, not how others define you. Everyone is an individual, and every individual is just as precious and valuable as the next one. Tenma himself seems to live this way, as his beliefs are a huge part of his identity and they came not from those around him, but from something he chose for himself. So for Tenma people may be different, but they are all equals. Names do not create inequality for him. ...And all of this is why he is so alone, since not many people think the way he thinks. ;) Johan, however, is a threat to this belief system, and by extension, a threat to Tenma's very identity. It sort of goes with the paradox of tolerance: Can a person who identifies himself as tolerant tolerate intolerance? Or to be more applicable to Tenma: How can a person who believes that all lives are equal stand against someone who is a threat to that equality without downgrading that person? And thus we have the problem of someone having to dominate over another in order to maintain his identity, but in the process actually destroying it. Tenma's sense of self is put into question, and no matter what decision he makes, he's screwed. Either Johan dominates over him or he dominates over Johan. Either way, he is destroying himself. And Johan exploits that to hell and back. Very interesting points! Indeed, this may be Tenma's greatest crisis, lying beneath his inability to kill a human being, which could also be interpreted as a form of seeing all as equal. And to extend this thought, this specific trait of his could also imply that he himself, even as a man who sees others as equals to each other, also sees them as equals to himself, a reason his judgement on others is always hesitant, always inconsistent. I previously stated in this thread that Johan's admiration for Tenma stemmed from Tenma's independent sense of self, and how admiration for someone usually came from that person having something you specifically lacked. However, I am thinking of retracting that statement, for reasons I have just come up with while reading your post. It seems, when there is equality for all, there is also the absence of independence and differentiation between human beings. In truth, Tenma does not have an independent sense of self, if this connection with others holds true with regards to his thought process. And if you notice, equality in the form of names mirrors equality in the form of namelessness... In truth, Johan and Tenma are striving for similar goals through different methods. Equality in life and equality in death, equality in identity and equality in a lack of identity... All of these form the very basis of this struggle, and why I believe that when Johan said, "the only thing equal for all humans is death", it was in fact directed at Tenma's need to liken all through life. | |
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 279 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63261611 01-11-2012 08:25 PM ...How the hell did you get to the bottom of a bottomless pit? :D It's okay. A new semester of college awaits me next week. And there's one class I particularly dread because I've heard things about the professor. o_O ...Didn't you say you were Czech, btw? I guess that would explain the schedule differences. *is American* ...Actually, if you are Czech that would be oddly relevant. XD Anyway, down to business: Are you saying that destroying the monster will destroy both the part of Johan that is monstrous and the part that's human? Are they deeply linked to one another? (I think you may have implied that in your other posts...) Could the monster simply be a sort of outgrowh of the human? As for if Johan choosing to be nameless, I think you're right that it could be considered both an act of isolation and a way of keeping him from becoming a void. With or without a name, Johan doesn't feel like he has much to live for. By becoming nameless and trying to reshape the world in a nameless state, it gives him an odd sense of purpose. Further isolating himself just ensures that he won't have a name. Now as for Tenma, I do think he has an independent sense of self (well, as much as a human can have an independent sense of self). His chapter in AM makes a point of him being a very independent person, especially with this quote: "Japanese aren't suited to be independent, so we don't like to acknowledge lone wolves in our midst. That's why Tenma never fit in." And there's also the fact that he didn't take over his father's hospital. While it's not clear about why he didn't want to do it, I think that one reason could possibly be that he wasn't for sure about what he wanted to do in medicine and at the same time he didn't want anyone to decide for him. He didn't want anyone to define who he was. What I was getting at with my last post was that Tenma probably believes that one can choose not to let other people define them. People are who they are regardless of status. Status simply masks the inherent value that people have. It's an illusion. To Tenma, people can still differentiate themselves from others and still be equal, since everyone has value no matter who they are. To clarify this, imagine that everyone was the number 24. There are many different ways you can add numbers to get 24: 23+1, 24+0, 12+12, etc. They're all different but equal. ...Of course, I could just be overanalyzing here. :tongue: Though perhaps Tenma does begin to lose his sense of self once he starts chasing after Johan. I can't recall what led me to think of this, but Urasawa put a couple of **noel**/Christian metaphors in regards to Tenma in AM. Verdeman refers to him carrying a huge cross, while Karl described him as being ascetic. While I had the general idea that ascetic meant living a minimalistic life shunning materialism, I decided to look up the word regardless. A lot of the definitions I found referred to self-mortification. I guess Tenma is really punishing himself by taking it upon himself to stop Johan. And in the process, he's hurting himself. Another thing popped into my head about Johan as a sort of expansion to something I asked in my last post: How exactly does he view breaking and killing people? Does he see death as a twisted sort of mercy? Or does he simply see humans as worthless and have only contempt for them (and by extension himself)? Or does he simply do what he does, experiencing himself as a sort of automaton? Or maybe it's all of the above? XD |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 280 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63267241 01-16-2012 06:18 AM TophBeiFong wrote: ...How the hell did you get to the bottom of a bottomless pit? :D Turns out, the pit did have a bottom. We just assumed it was bottomless because we could not see the bottom :D. How's that for a mysterious, irrelevant analysis on the limitations of the human mind and, therefore, its knowledge? ;) It's okay. A new semester of college awaits me next week. And there's one class I particularly dread because I've heard things about the professor. o_O ...Didn't you say you were Czech, btw? I guess that would explain the schedule differences. *is American* ...Actually, if you are Czech that would be oddly relevant. XD :D I am Czech (born and raised for the first 6 years over there), but I have lived in the states for quite some time now. So, I suppose you could call me American :). The schedule difference is most likely due to me still being in high school lol. Anyway, good luck with your new professor! Anyway, down to business: Are you saying that destroying the monster will destroy both the part of Johan that is monstrous and the part that's human? Are they deeply linked to one another? (I think you may have implied that in your other posts...) Could the monster simply be a sort of outgrowh of the human? Yes, I was implying something along those lines. That they are either deeply connected to one another, so much so that they have molded into one entity, or, perhaps, that there is a problem with the human side seeing itself as a separate being, and as a result, it is unable to identify itself without the monster, its purpose is turned useless. The image it currently takes on is simply a mimic of the monster. As for if Johan choosing to be nameless, I think you're right that it could be considered both an act of isolation and a way of keeping him from becoming a void. With or without a name, Johan doesn't feel like he has much to live for. By becoming nameless and trying to reshape the world in a nameless state, it gives him an odd sense of purpose. Further isolating himself just ensures that he won't have a name. Indeed. Also, there is the theory that Johan may not wish to have a name due to him seeing the name as a symbol of equality among humans...For someone who has remained nameless throughout his life, the concept of the name is far more important than the name itself. A connection with other people would immediately point to a need for the human side of him to develop and grow. And his fear could stem from him wishing to, as you say, keep himself from becoming a void. I think it is interesting that Johan's view of a name (whether it has always been this way, or he has recently developed it) is somewhat different from Bonaparta's. It seems that Bonaparta places immense amounts of importance on names in general, whereas Johan seems to regard both having and not having a name as basically the same thing.... Now as for Tenma, I do think he has an independent sense of self (well, as much as a human can have an independent sense of self). His chapter in AM makes a point of him being a very independent person, especially with this quote: "Japanese aren't suited to be independent, so we don't like to acknowledge lone wolves in our midst. That's why Tenma never fit in." And there's also the fact that he didn't take over his father's hospital. While it's not clear about why he didn't want to do it, I think that one reason could possibly be that he wasn't for sure about what he wanted to do in medicine and at the same time he didn't want anyone to decide for him. He didn't want anyone to define who he was. What I was getting at with my last post was that Tenma probably believes that one can choose not to let other people define them. People are who they are regardless of status. Status simply masks the inherent value that people have. It's an illusion. To Tenma, people can still differentiate themselves from others and still be equal, since everyone has value no matter who they are. To clarify this, imagine that everyone was the number 24. There are many different ways you can add numbers to get 24: 23+1, 24+0, 12+12, etc. They're all different but equal. ...Of course, I could just be overanalyzing here. :tongue: Oh, I really like your example with the numbers! Very insightful! However, would the components matter, if the result is all the same? There are only so many combinations, they are bound to be repeated. Is value determined from the pieces of the puzzle, all scattered in different ways, or the outcome of the puzzle itself? There can only ever be one outcome, and the image formed will be true for all. The pieces, no matter how they are placed, can only truly fit if done in one way. Hope this made sense :D. To be honest, I like your allusion to addition better :D. Hmm, I see what you mean, and I do agree that Tenma's independent sense of self existed within him at one point, but, as you point out in your next paragraph, it becomes slightly lost as he begins chasing Johan, allowing Johan to define him. Of course, Johan's "definition" of Tenma is quite in tuned with his own inherent nature, however, it does falter slightly, when Tenma refuses to acknowledge Johan's ultimate goal. This reinforces Tenma's sense of self, which is, as is seen throughout the story, constantly faltering. This refusal of Johan mirrors Tenma's refusal of the hospital director's orders. While he goes along with the flow of others, he almost always reverts back to himself in the end. Though perhaps Tenma does begin to lose his sense of self once he starts chasing after Johan. I can't recall what led me to think of this, but Urasawa put a couple of **noel**/Christian metaphors in regards to Tenma in AM. Verdeman refers to him carrying a huge cross, while Karl described him as being ascetic. While I had the general idea that ascetic meant living a minimalistic life shunning materialism, I decided to look up the word regardless. A lot of the definitions I found referred to self-mortification. I guess Tenma is really punishing himself by taking it upon himself to stop Johan. And in the process, he's hurting himself. A masochist, hmm? Yes, I would agree with that. While he burdens himself with what he believes to be the ultimate form of inequality (taking the life of another human being), he does not allow others to fall as he does. Do you think this connects to Karl in some way? I have been attempting to make a connection between the people Johan respects, in order to gain a better understanding of why he views them as such worthy beings. I said in an earlier post that Karl detracted from his own identity, in order to respect the identities of others. He took on a false identity, burdened himself with a symbol of nonexistence. All for the sakes of others. The same could be applied to Tenma. Another thing popped into my head about Johan as a sort of expansion to something I asked in my last post: How exactly does he view breaking and killing people? Does he see death as a twisted sort of mercy? Or does he simply see humans as worthless and have only contempt for them (and by extension himself)? Or does he simply do what he does, experiencing himself as a sort of automaton? Or maybe it's all of the above? XD Johan strikes me as a man who is neither noble nor unjust.... I do not believe that he takes pleasure from any of his actions, and therefore, I do not believe that there is a specific purpose to any of his methods. He does what he does because he is a nonexistent human being. So, I suppose this goes along with your automaton theory? :D Well, as he is, in his own mind, nonexistent, this provides insight into his lack of belonging, and how he views the world as separate from himself. Does he see himself as a God/Devil of sorts? No, I personally don't think so. He knows that he is human, but he is a shadow, merely instigating human-driven massacres that he believes will already occur even if he were not there to start them. In the end, he himself will die, as he predicted in his own thoughts. So, perhaps an automaton who sees himself as, surprisingly, equal to everyone else? Could his wish to be the last man standing indicate a hint of superiority in his nature? | |
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 281 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63323919 01-16-2012 02:15 PM JohanT wrote: TophBeiFong wrote: Turns out, the pit did have a bottom. We just assumed it was bottomless because we could not see the bottom :D. How's that for a mysterious, irrelevant analysis on the limitations of the human mind and, therefore, its knowledge? ;) Ah, but what if the bottom is actually the top, but the opening is actually the bottom. The opening has no bounds. How's that for turning your mysterious, irrelevant analysis on its head? :D :D I am Czech (born and raised for the first 6 years over there), but I have lived in the states for quite some time now. So, I suppose you could call me American :). The schedule difference is most likely due to me still being in high school lol. Anyway, good luck with your new professor! Wow, I actually assumed you were in college for some reason! I have to say I'm impressed. Indeed. Also, there is the theory that Johan may not wish to have a name due to him seeing the name as a symbol of equality among humans...For someone who has remained nameless throughout his life, the concept of the name is far more important than the name itself. A connection with other people would immediately point to a need for the human side of him to develop and grow. And his fear could stem from him wishing to, as you say, keep himself from becoming a void. I think it is interesting that Johan's view of a name (whether it has always been this way, or he has recently developed it) is somewhat different from Bonaparta's. It seems that Bonaparta places immense amounts of importance on names in general, whereas Johan seems to regard both having and not having a name as basically the same thing.... Hmm...I think that Johan may view names as being a symbol of inequality among humans, actually. Like I mentioned before, having a name puts a value on you. People associate a name with who you are, and within society, not all people are equal. People's desire to be above another person in order to create an identity that's suitable for them will end up being destructive in the end. So Johan's namelessness, I believe, is an effort for Johan to escape all of that. If he were to give himself a name, he would have to face the possibility of being below others. If Johan were to have a name, it could potentially crush the human side of him. So perhaps the monster is sort of shielding the human in this interpretation? Though maybe your idea of names representing equality could have something to it as well. Everyone has a commonality in that they have a name. Johan doesn't feel as if he's really anything, so if he were given a name it would be acknowledging that he's not anything in comparison to others. So perhaps by believing that names are irrelevant, he can convince himself that no one else is really anything either. Am I getting you correctly? Oh, I really like your example with the numbers! Very insightful! However, would the components matter, if the result is all the same? There are only so many combinations, they are bound to be repeated. Is value determined from the pieces of the puzzle, all scattered in different ways, or the outcome of the puzzle itself? There can only ever be one outcome, and the image formed will be true for all. The pieces, no matter how they are placed, can only truly fit if done in one way. Hope this made sense :D. To be honest, I like your allusion to addition better :D. h, but who's to say that there are only a limited number of combinations? You always have decimals, you know. :P In all seriousness though, the pieces of the puzzle and the result are one in the same. Everyone is equal because everyone is valuable for being a unique human being. We're the same in that we're all different. Of course, I want to point out that this is just Tenma's view. It may not necessarily work that way in reality. I guess you can say that Monster is asking the question "Can humans coexist without destroying each other?" with Johan and Tenma representing each side of the issue. Hmm, I see what you mean, and I do agree that Tenma's independent sense of self existed within him at one point, but, as you point out in your next paragraph, it becomes slightly lost as he begins chasing Johan, allowing Johan to define him. Of course, Johan's "definition" of Tenma is quite in tuned with his own inherent nature, however, it does falter slightly, when Tenma refuses to acknowledge Johan's ultimate goal. This reinforces Tenma's sense of self, which is, as is seen throughout the story, constantly faltering. This refusal of Johan mirrors Tenma's refusal of the hospital director's orders. While he goes along with the flow of others, he almost always reverts back to himself in the end. Well said! But what do you think Johan's definition of Tenma was, exactly? Could he view him as someone who will ultimately become nameless like him? A masochist, hmm? Yes, I would agree with that. While he burdens himself with what he believes to be the ultimate form of inequality (taking the life of another human being), he does not allow others to fall as he does. Do you think this connects to Karl in some way? I have been attempting to make a connection between the people Johan respects, in order to gain a better understanding of why he views them as such worthy beings. I said in an earlier post that Karl detracted from his own identity, in order to respect the identities of others. He took on a false identity, burdened himself with a symbol of nonexistence. All for the sakes of others. The same could be applied to Tenma. Okay, first I want to ask why they're censoring the word *insert synonym for a certain Christian icon here*? I wasn't even using it as a swear. o_O Anyway, I think your thoughts about Karl and Tenma are interesting, but I can't seem to get them to fit for some reason. I decided to read over Karl's chapter again, and Karl mentioned that he felt that his father was a horrible man, but secretly wanted him to love him. Doesn't that seem similar to the situation between Johan and his mother? While I'm not sure about how much Johan remembered at that point, even after he found The Nameless Monster book again, perhaps that whole predicament spoke to him on some level. In addition, Karl also mentioned that he really did want to tell him the truth, but his confidence was shot. That could be a sense of unworthiness similar to what Johan applied to himself. And it also occured to me that Karl's situation with his father could be similar to the one Tenma has with his own mother. Could his wish to be the last man standing indicate a hint of superiority in his nature? Perhaps, but I also believe he views it as a sort of consolation prize more than anything. It's something that he really wants to see for himself, as I think he does take an odd sort of comfort in nihilism. Could wanting to show Tenma his vision of a nameless world be his way of wanting to "free" Tenma by taking away his name? When I was trying to come up with a connection among those Johan respects, I began thinking about what Tenma and Nina had in common. Nina sort of saved Johan in a way by being sent to the RRM in his place. Both Nina saving Johan and Tenma saving Johan required sacrifice. In a way, what Johan was doing in Ruhenheim really was like what Bonaparta was doing for Jomama. Johan wanted to kill himself so Nina could take her rightful place of being the "favored child" in a cosmic sense, just as Bonaparta killed everyone involved in the experiment to give Jomama her name back. Johan killing the doctors at Eisler Memorial, too, was a way of giving Tenma his name back after he sacrificed his former identity to save Johan. However, when Johan found that Tenma didn't like what he did for him, he decided to send him on a path to become nameless just as he has as a way of freeing him. The problem was that Tenma had rejected his old identity and created a new one. Johan, however, found a contradiction in that identity that could invalidate it... Does any of this make sense? At all? When trying to think of all this, my head spun. |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 282 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63326807 01-16-2012 04:13 PM TophBeiFong wrote: Ah, but what if the bottom is actually the top, but the opening is actually the bottom. The opening has no bounds. How's that for turning your mysterious, irrelevant analysis on its head? :D Haha, touche! And you literally did "flip it on its head", didn't you? :D Very clever! But, if our so-called pit is truly something akin to a large mound of dirt, we are insinuating that the opening will lead into a pit, if the opening does indeed have no bounds.... But, how can it have no bounds, when there may or may not even be a pit present, as it is covered by the bottomed top and the opened bottom? It may be bounded or boundless, and therefore, cannot be deemed bottomless. As it is, it is not an "opening' if it is not out in the open :D! And if so, no rock would ever fall down the bottomless pit, as it will in fact have a limited bottom, one that sits on the top :D. Such things are called mountains :D. I'm rambling nonsense, aren't I? But really. There is a reason we are calling this completely irrelevant! Nevertheless, it is fun! Wow, I actually assumed you were in college for some reason! I have to say I'm impressed. Thank you :D. College awaits me next! Hmm...I think that Johan may view names as being a symbol of inequality among humans, actually. Like I mentioned before, having a name puts a value on you. People associate a name with who you are, and within society, not all people are equal. People's desire to be above another person in order to create an identity that's suitable for them will end up being destructive in the end. So Johan's namelessness, I believe, is an effort for Johan to escape all of that. If he were to give himself a name, he would have to face the possibility of being below others. If Johan were to have a name, it could potentially crush the human side of him. So perhaps the monster is sort of shielding the human in this interpretation? Though maybe your idea of names representing equality could have something to it as well. Everyone has a commonality in that they have a name. Johan doesn't feel as if he's really anything, so if he were given a name it would be acknowledging that he's not anything in comparison to others. So perhaps by believing that names are irrelevant, he can convince himself that no one else is really anything either. Am I getting you correctly? Indeed you are! You see, the "inequality" in having a name is only seen (the wrong word, but I can think of no other at the moment) by those who have always had names. As I addressed in my previous post, the concept of the name itself is what is the most important to identify. For one who has lived a nameless life as Johan has, giving him a name will not allow for a shift in inequality...In fact, it would liken him to other beings. At the moment, he is inequal. He has no name. But giving him a name releases the human from its bonds, causes him to stand on the same level as other human beings, and destroys the monster. But without the monster, the human cannot survive, for its identity is that of a monster.... If that makes sense :D. It just basically goes back to my theory on Johan's personal struggle. Ah, but who's to say that there are only a limited number of combinations? You always have decimals, you know. :P Ah, yes we do! However, a number is bound to be repeated in the various sequences that make up human society. How can there be complete differentiation (independence) when there are indeed similarities? Lol. And, another crazy thought, are humans made of wholes or parts? Would those made of two wholes be superior to those made of two parts? Would the difference between the two cause an idea of inequality? It would not matter, would it, if both add up to the same thing.... Which is why I believe that components are not as powerful as the result :D. I was thinking....what if all were to add up to the number 0? Of course, negatives could be used at one point, but no matter.... Could the 0 exist solely on its own? The reason I am bringing this up is because of the similar goals of both Johan and Tenma. How they both are creating equality through different methods. Because of this, the struggle is mirrored in the adding up of numbers into one neutral figure.... In a sense, would a nameless monster, at the same time, a superior and inferior creature (with regards to humanity), sit at the number 0? This goes back to what I said about 0 existing by itself.... Can a number, as a symbol of a human, live on its own? Not sure if this made sense, but I'll leave it at that :D. In all seriousness though, the pieces of the puzzle and the result are one in the same. Everyone is equal because everyone is valuable for being a unique human being. We're the same in that we're all different. Of course, I want to point out that this is just Tenma's view. It may not necessarily work that way in reality. I guess you can say that Monster is asking the question "Can humans coexist without destroying each other?" with Johan and Tenma representing each side of the issue. Nicely said. To be honest, I suppose that Johan's "theory", if we are to call it that, would be that humans destroy each other as a way to demonstrate superiority over each other, but in the end, all end up equal through death. So, Johan believes that humans will destroy each other through natural happenings in human nature, and as a result, true peace (wrong word again :D) will ensue. I brought up something similar to you statement, "We're the same in that we're all different". On an earlier page, I suggested that the road to superiority merely stresses the equality among humans, as everyone searches and desires the exact same result. It is only in their wishful heads that they are different. Of course, Tenma does believe that differences reinforce similarities to some extent.... Well said! But what do you think Johan's definition of Tenma was, exactly? Could he view him as someone who will ultimately become nameless like him? A man who judged no one and who saw none as superior or inferior. In a sense, his unique view would already imply that his name is simply a name, nothing more. And as a result, the simpleness of a name without any meaning is, in fact, a form of namelessness. So, in reality, by taking the way meaning behind a name, Tenma is doing exactly (in a much nicer way :D) what Johan does. Johan wished for the seemingly impossible: to face judgement at the hands of a man who judged no one. This is simply because Johan is also a man who judges no one. Everyone is, in actuality, equal in his eyes, no matter how he goes about showing this :D. So who is the true equalizer, the buffer in the powerful chemical reaction that is mankind? With Johan's death by Tenma's hands, Johan's own vision of equality is solidified, while Tenma's withers away into nothing. Okay, first I want to ask why they're censoring the word *insert synonym for a certain Christian icon here*? I wasn't even using it as a swear. o_O That is a bit strange. Who knows! I must be going now :(. I shall answer the rest in another post! | |
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 283 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63327995 01-18-2012 11:10 PM Sorry for not replying, since I was kinda waiting on you. Anyway... The pit that the opening leads to is an invisible pit, so there. :P Hmm...that is an interesting idea about Johan's motivatons. But remember how I said that the inequality names create is also how scenarios like Ruhenheim come to be? I think Johan had to have understood that in order to pull it off, as well as to be able to manipulate people in general. In fact, I think the reason that the human side of Johan is underdeveloped is because he is aware of the inequality of names. To be given a name and make him human would set him above and/or below other humans. So he tries to transcend humanity by becoming a monster... I'm not sure what you mean by wholes and parts. How could someone be made of two wholes, unless they have multiple personalities or something? :/ Could you elaborate on that? The part about all of us equaling zero is genius, however. No one is really inherently anything really. The value is something we as humans add. Not sure about the part about zero existing by itself though. Are you saying that in order for zero to exist, there must be other numbers to compare it to, meaning that in order for a nameless monster to exist, there must be people with names? Hmm...good point about Johan treating people equally. Though it should be stressed that perhaps Tenma sees people as equally valuable, while Johan sees people as equally valueless. I believe the fact that they are both dealing with the same issue but in different ways reflects the fundamental conflict between hope and despair. Something occurred to me about Johan wanting only Tenma to view the end, and I think it sort of connects with what you said about Johan's view being verfied. Gillen said that the reason Johan wanted to isolate Tenma because he needed someone. So perhaps he wanted someone to share his madness with. I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that Johan made a big deal about Tenma remembering him after meeting again for the first time in nine years. Perhaps the fact that Tenma cared enough to remember him was what prompted him to pull him into his nameless world. Even if everyone will ultimately die and everything ultimately be forgotten in Johan's view, there's still a need to have someone to remember him until the end, no matter how briefly. And by sharing his world with Tenma and getting him to understand, he can prove that he is, in fact, right... |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 284 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63359753 01-20-2012 03:49 PM TophBeiFong wrote: Sorry for not replying, since I was kinda waiting on you. Anyway... Ah, sorry about that. Turns out that myths have a high potential of being true. Teachers really do squeeze all extraneous assignments into the final week of the semester :(. The pit that the opening leads to is an invisible pit, so there. :P :D Very well then, it is invisible. And invisibility could imply its boundlessness :D. Hmm...that is an interesting idea about Johan's motivatons. But remember how I said that the inequality names create is also how scenarios like Ruhenheim come to be? I think Johan had to have understood that in order to pull it off, as well as to be able to manipulate people in general. In fact, I think the reason that the human side of Johan is underdeveloped is because he is aware of the inequality of names. To be given a name and make him human would set him above and/or below other humans. So he tries to transcend humanity by becoming a monster... The thing is, the fact that he is nameless is already setting value, whether he wishes for it to or not. It is inhuman, so therefore it is not a human value, but it does not suggest equality. In reality, solitude does not seem to be a connecting factor. But perhaps you have a point. Setting value on a human could be identified with Tenma's struggle against the re-occuring statement of "not all lives are equal", as has been suggested numerous times. And names are also a form of such value, but the sound that identifies the name is what such a value is built upon. In Tenma's eyes, the sound doesn't exist, but the essence does. And I personally believe that Johan sees it quite similarly. A nameless man who is given a name, in my opinion, will either learn to cherish such a name, and in doing so, become a mere comparison against the backdrop of mankind, or, as I believe is Johan's case, realize that both names and lack of names are identical, when all are seen as equal in simple concept. I'm not sure if that made sense, but I'll just say that for now :D. I may be contradicting myself slightly... I'm not sure what you mean by wholes and parts. How could someone be made of two wholes, unless they have multiple personalities or something? :/ Could you elaborate on that? The part about all of us equaling zero is genius, however. No one is really inherently anything really. The value is something we as humans add. Not sure about the part about zero existing by itself though. Are you saying that in order for zero to exist, there must be other numbers to compare it to, meaning that in order for a nameless monster to exist, there must be people with names? Yes, I was implying something like that with regards to zero, though you said it in a much nicer way than I would have :D. However, I am not sure that humans need to exist in order to define a monster... But maybe that is straying from the topic :D. I suppose I was just playing around when I spoke about the "wholes and parts", but to elaborate more thoroughly, I was looking at the components within the components :D. Inequality was demonstrated between those who are made of 23+1 and 22.5+1.5. Two wholes vs two decimals...would it make a difference in the result, even though the components themselves distinguish from each other? And of course, in order to add up to 24, only two decimals can be added together, as is the same with two whole numbers, perhaps hinting at a larger concept of grouping...Hmm, interesting.... Anyways, while I do agree that no one is truly anything, I do not believe that "0" is the number to define "nothing" (disregarding mathematics :D). It implies neutrality, a battle between two forces that equal one another. As such, I feel that all humans are built of figures that add up to the same number, but reaching a balance is only demonstrated by the concept of the nameless monster. A superior being in the form of a monster, yet a valueless creature because it is nameless.... Oh, something just occured to me! In one of my posts, I gave a little monologue on my view of "perfection", and how it is a concept that neither benefits nor hinders humankind. Could the number 0 be a possible representation of a foreign balance, and thus perfection, as it is viewed neither "negatively" nor "positively" (heh heh. Get it? Lol sorry, bad joke :()? Hope that made sense :D. Hmm...good point about Johan treating people equally. Though it should be stressed that perhaps Tenma sees people as equally valuable, while Johan sees people as equally valueless. I believe the fact that they are both dealing with the same issue but in different ways reflects the fundamental conflict between hope and despair. Something occurred to me about Johan wanting only Tenma to view the end, and I think it sort of connects with what you said about Johan's view being verfied. Gillen said that the reason Johan wanted to isolate Tenma because he needed someone. So perhaps he wanted someone to share his madness with. I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that Johan made a big deal about Tenma remembering him after meeting again for the first time in nine years. Perhaps the fact that Tenma cared enough to remember him was what prompted him to pull him into his nameless world. Even if everyone will ultimately die and everything ultimately be forgotten in Johan's view, there's still a need to have someone to remember him until the end, no matter how briefly. And by sharing his world with Tenma and getting him to understand, he can prove that he is, in fact, right... Indeed. A thought has actually just come to mind. I said in an earlier post that, to a nameless man, life and death would appear to be the same. Death is merely the destruction (or the appearance of destruction, at any rate) of identity, and thus being. A nameless human lacks both. Of course, this is not to imply that the fear of death is nonexistent, as I am quite sure that it affects all people, but it is merely an observance from a psychological standpoint. Both realms display alike images, and I, personally, think that Johan views it as such. This could be, going off of your reference to what Gillen said, one of the primary reasons Johan wanted Tenma to see the end. As I stated previously, Johan and Tenma work towards the same goal. And in truth, their goals, in my eyes at the very least, are basically identical. Without life, there is no death, and without death, there is no life. So in reality, these two opposing concepts are, in fact, very much defined by each other. Just like Johan and Tenma. And I think this may be mirrored in the final scene. Johan's wish to die by the man who values life above death could also be interpreted as an effort to mesh the two worlds of supposedly "opposing" values. To show Tenma that, in the end, it is not that humans will all die, or that humans will all live, but that humans will live, as Tenma wishes, but will all die, regardless of his actions. :D Now what does this all have to do with what I said about life and death being the same to a nameless human? Well, by killing Johan, Tenma would be creating a truly nameless man. And this could potentially serve as a symbol for their struggle. In the end, the man who values life must acknowledge death.... Perhaps mirroring Tenma's acknowledgement of Johan's existence, when he remembers Johan as the boy he saved from death itself.... Oh, I actually have much to say on this, now that I think on it. But I'll shut up for now, and let you respond :D. | |
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 285 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63380811 01-21-2012 11:46 PM It's fine. The professor I spoke of before isn't really that bad, but she gives a lot of work. So I will eventually be in the same predicament as you were. :( What I was getting at was that Johan may have wanted to become nameless to avoid having a value put on himself. Though maybe you have a point too, and maybe your earlier comment about Johan's namelessness being representative inequality, as Johan's nonexistence in the face of the existence of others seems to highlight that. Yet I seem to keep going back to this idea that Johan believes namelessness is freedom. If everything will cease to exist eventually, why even bother with all the struggle of gaining a name? And Johan seems fascinated with fear, especially fear of death. Perhaps he wondered why everyone feared death, why everyone tried to cling to life when it's so transient in the first place. Though perhaps Johan sees it from both viewpoints? That could go back to what you keep saying about there being no difference between having an name and not having a name if everyone is equal. In fact, if you want to get meta, this very conversation reflects that! You seem to be arguing that having a name is what makes us equal to others, while I'm arguing that having an name is what makes us unequal to others. But maybe we're both right, which means that it really makes no difference! :D Wow, that elaboration about wholes and parts is interesting. I guess I was confused because I was trying to look for the human equivalent. So what would that be? Hmm...perhaps the fact that they are split into two different groupings is significant in itself... Puns are fun! Wee! XD Anyway, 0 being neutrality, and the nameless monster being a neutral state...that's interesing indeed. And it goes back to the big chunky paragraph above (lol): If we're both correct, then the nameless monster really can be a superior and inferior being at the same time. The same goes for humans who have names. So that means that neutrality is inherently pardoxical...like the nature of Tenma's conflict. Perhaps Urasawa is saying that existence itself is paradoxical. (And maybe that's why thinking about this series sometimes makes my head spin. But I love every minute I do so. XD) I very much like your analysis of why Johan wanted to see the end. It reminds me of something I came across in my sociological theory class...*finds textbook from last semster* Ah, here we go: Georg W.F. Hegel (one of the philosophers who inspired Marx no less!). He believed that every idea, or thesis, had an antithesis. The result of conflict is that the two ideas are merged in order to create a new thesis. Very much like the conflict between Johan and Tenma, no? ;) ...I'm trying to come up with something with this idea you have by combining it with some of my own, but I'm pretty tired right now. Maybe I'll edit this with an idea hopefully before you read it. If not, then I'll get somewhere eventually. :P Before I stop, I want to throw this out there: I think I have an idea as to why Bonaparta asked Jomama to pick one twin to give up. Remember when she told him that one of her children will get revenge? Perhaps Bonaparta was simply curious as to which one she had picked. And I think the fact that Jomama may have picked someone to carry out her revenge reflects that parents want to live through their children. Children are how we live on, after all, so we want to carve them in our image. But the child is his/her own person. Thus we have the conflict of wanting a separate identity but also wanting their identity to be acknowledged by others. Since parents try to define their children and people are different, this results in inequality. Plus, perhaps wanting to live through their children also reflects the parent's own desire for an identity... |
|
| VadaH Posts: 9 Registered: 12-23-2011 Message 286 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63128693 01-23-2012 01:59 PM Sorry for the delay, I got distracted. I have convinced my husband to watch the series, but well, you know how long it is, so it could be a while (he won't watch more than 4 episodes a week). But, even without his watching it, I could tell you what he thinks of some of Monster's psychological aspects (because of him, I know way more about psychology than I would like :-p) He does acknowledge hypnotism, though not in the way typically shown on TV, more of the super-relaxed state that allows you to access and see memories more clearly and with less of the accompanied anxiety of traumatic events. He would have some issues with the fact that all the psychological experts in the series are psychiatrists (yeah, as a psychologist, he has that professional rivalry with the psychiatrists, he views them as little more than drug pushers. Though I am not sure what kind of training is involved with psychiatry in Europe, in the US it's a MD with a few courses on psychology and psychopharmacology). He would outright reject the Multiple Personality Disorder references, he believes that there are no credible cases or evidence of it (though he accepts simple disassociative disorders). And frankly I was very glad when Dr. Gillen's chapter in AM pretty much rejected the idea that Johan had MPD, it made more sense that Johan was just messing with Tenma. And as for the physiognomy, well, that's no more valid than phrenology ( and both practices pre-date psychology), he would completely reject this concept (though he might find it fitting that it was a psychiatrist that was practicing it ;-)). There is probably more, but I can't remember it all. I'll let you know if he says anything when we watch it (and then try to convince him to read AM, that could be an uphill battle ::frustrated::). But you have a great conversation going. This whole name and equality concept is quite mired. While it is evident that Urasawa places a great value on names, I was wondering exactly how tied a name is with a person's identity. So, could a person have no name, but still have a defined identity? And if a name is changed (like witness protection, for instance), does that change the person's identity? (because, something is what it is, regardless of what it is called, right?) I liked the idea that JohanT. wrote about Johan being a shadow, there but not there, inciting violence that he believed was bound to take place anyways. He truly has a bleak view of humanity, most likely because that is what he was taught and experienced (like TophBeiFong wrote, Johan finds comfort in nihilism and it suits him and his views). Certainly, history has shown us that humans will fight with each other over resources or even just perceived differences. People like the concept of equality, but frequently discriminate against those who do not resemble them or believe the same things they do, and would quickly fight against equality for others if they perceive that it would result in any sort of loss to their own privileges. Johan sees this darkness within others and exploits it, pointing out the inherent contradiction that is their lives. Plus, I was wondering (yeah, I know I'm rambling, but bear with me), Nina was the child taken for the experiment (adding to Johan's, 'which child was unwanted' complex), and Jomama was supposedly also taken away shortly after, leaving Johan alone. So, how long was Johan left alone in that room(since Nina wasn't sure how much time had passed)? Did he have food? Would this have added to his feelings of isolation and nonexistence? There is great conjecture over Johan's false memories (and, yes, my husband does accept that this is possible, though I am not sure how likely or frequently he believes it can occur), how his 'freudian excuse' isn't valid, since the actual trauma was experienced by his sister. But as I see it, since he views his sister as being just another part of himself(or as previously discussed, the same as himself, or any of the other combinations that represent his messed up relationship with his sister), any trauma she experienced, he would feel just as strongly. And on top of his internalization of her trauma, he would have his own trauma of being left alone in that room with no knowledge or prospect of anyone ever coming to get him. That's all for now, I'll try no to get too distracted, but I make no promises. |
|
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 287 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to VadaH - Message ID#: 63416151 01-24-2012 09:33 PM Just checking in real quick to say I'm about ready to send out that last translation. One sentence is kind of sketchy, but I'm not sure it matters much. I just have a cold and my head hurts and my eyes itch, so I don't feel like whipping it into final form yet. Carry on! :D |
|
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 288 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63437243 01-28-2012 02:59 PM Is this actually going to be the final translation? Sure nothing else will come up? :P Anyway... Here's an interesting question I have about Jomama: Was the child she gave up (or wanted to give up) the one she wanted to enact revenge? Or was it the one she kept (or wanted to keep)? And since Bonaparta let Nina witness the murder, what was the purpose of that? I think it would depend on the answer to my first question. ;) And going back to the thesis/antithesis thing from earlier, I think it can be viewed in either one of two ways. Either it could be something like JohanT mentioned, in which life and death sort of merge as two halves of the same concept (one cannot have life without death) or perhaps Johan views death as always being victorious, so if the two meet, death will consume all. Either way, I think this reflects the conflict within ourselves. Do we choose light or darkness? Tenma and Johan could be seen as the personifications of each side, and pitting them against each other shows how we're fighting with ourselves. Maybe. XD Also, I believe my view of Tenma has changed slightly. He needs to be validated as much as anyone else, but he chooses to follow his own heart. When he does so, people do not always like that (as evidenced with Heinemann). Because of that independence, he's always alone. He still tries to maintain his sense of self, but it hurts when there's no one to confirm it. I guess that goes back to the conflict about identity: If give in to the will of others, are you really yourself? But if you do not, is your identity valid if no one accepts it? In a way, both Tenma and Johan have dealt with having their identities being unverified by others, but their approach is different. Johan acts as the destroyer, trying to strip everyone of any worth, while Tenma acts as the validator, trying to make everyone feel worthwhile. And thus the two clash. @VadaH I hope your husband likes this. It would be interesting to get his input. Though I will say that neither Gillen nor Reichwein seem to be drug pushers. Gillen seems to be more in the academic/research aspect of psychiatry, while all we've seen Reichwein do is treat alcoholism and PTSD. And honestly, I think the reference to MPD was just an excuse to introduce Dr. Gillen. Gillen also acknowledges that a lot of murderers claiming to have MPD are liars. Plus, when Richard Braun asks Reichwein to analyze Fahren's face with physiognomy (or something like that), Reichwein says that it's hogwash, but gives his opinion anyway and is promptly proven wrong. :P So about names...I think names are associated with identity because people associate characteristics of the person with their name. For example, when you think of Abraham Lincoln, you think of "Honest Abe," the guy who freed the slaves, etc. Also, interesting speculation about Johan. If he was left alone for several days, it certainly couldn't have helped his psyche. |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 289 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63490863 01-29-2012 05:55 AM TophBeiFong wrote: Here's an interesting question I have about Jomama: Was the child she gave up (or wanted to give up) the one she wanted to enact revenge? Or was it the one she kept (or wanted to keep)? And since Bonaparta let Nina witness the murder, what was the purpose of that? I think it would depend on the answer to my first question. ;) A few pages back, I speculated that the child given would be chosen for two potential reasons. One of the reasons could be for, as you say, the fulfilling of the mother's revenge, and the other could be the mother's subconscious desire to somehow "reenact" her own trauma of being the unwanted one of a pair of twins. I personally believe that it is the former, but the real question in my mind is the one that Johan's own conflict is built upon: "Which one was unwanted?" The word "needed", used in the English dub, may imply the mother's wish to use her child as a vessel of vengeance, but unwanted implies something entirely different. The unwanted child could either be the one who was given up, or he/she could be the one who was left behind, who the mother did not pay heed to because they were not a primary player in her game of revenge. Regardless of this, though, both were abandoned. Both were given up. And I think this is mirrored in their appearances, as both were dressed to look alike and act alike. A blind choice on the mother's part, to create equality among the two of them, and because of this equality, the abandonment of one should result in the abandonment of the other as well. Regarding Bonaparta, I brought up a point previously about Bonaparta's wish to have the mother's hatred, since he cannot have her love. So he played her game, and created a scenario from which a monster could be born. However, this contradicts his later actions, as he releases Nina and Johan from their bonds, saying that they "musn't become monsters". Perhaps, through this, he is negating the mother's revenge through mercy. He wishes to face it, yet his love for her extends to her children as well, and as he is an example of how revenge morphs one into a beast, he may have wanted to spare the child from the fate, yet at the same time, create the monster the mother wished for.... A monstrous action that releases freedom? Haha, I personally think that this last paragraph made little sense. And going back to the thesis/antithesis thing from earlier, I think it can be viewed in either one of two ways. Either it could be something like JohanT mentioned, in which life and death sort of merge as two halves of the same concept (one cannot have life without death) or perhaps Johan views death as always being victorious, so if the two meet, death will consume all. Either way, I think this reflects the conflict within ourselves. Do we choose light or darkness? Tenma and Johan could be seen as the personifications of each side, and pitting them against each other shows how we're fighting with ourselves. Maybe. XD Personally, I believe the two views are very much the same. Life and death are merged together in the ongoing circle that is existence, but death is victorious, merely because there is life preceding it. Can it be victorious if it must be defined by its opponent? In short, none are victorious, but death will consume all, for that is life's own end. The true reason I believe, as I stated before, is that Johan's goal is merely to show Tema this very concept of defintion. Also, something that has been stewing in my mind for sometime is the vision of the "scenery of a doomsday". In that scene, there is no life, nor is there death. It is simply empty. Life is gone, therefore death is gone. Could the final scene, as a representation of the result of an apocaplypse, be demonstrating that definition has molded itself, and since there is nothing to define nothing (which is invalid, for there must be something to define nothing), it ceases to exist? Before I stop, I want to throw this out there: I think I have an idea as to why Bonaparta asked Jomama to pick one twin to give up. Remember when she told him that one of her children will get revenge? Perhaps Bonaparta was simply curious as to which one she had picked. And I think the fact that Jomama may have picked someone to carry out her revenge reflects that parents want to live through their children. Children are how we live on, after all, so we want to carve them in our image. But the child is his/her own person. Thus we have the conflict of wanting a separate identity but also wanting their identity to be acknowledged by others. Since parents try to define their children and people are different, this results in inequality. Plus, perhaps wanting to live through their children also reflects the parent's own desire for an identity... This is very interesting. And a thought just came to mind after reading this. Would a human, as a creature selfish enough to want to distinguish its own identity, prefer its own identity being reinforced by itself, or by its children? Of course, a human knows that life is temporary, but with regards to preference, to pure seflishness, which would a human choose? | |
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 290 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63416151 01-24-2012 09:33 PM TophBeiFong wrote: Is this actually going to be the final translation? Sure nothing else will come up? :P No, I'm not sure. :P But unless someone else spots a mistake that needs correcting, I hope sure so! When did Jomama say only one of her children would take revenge? And I think Bonaparta let her see the massacre because he had no choice. Without her there, they wouldn't have anything to toast. As for the speculation that he made her choose so that one would still be available to carry out her revenge, I don't think so. I think he had to bring at least one to the party, but there was no point in ruining them both. He did what he could to minimize the damage to Nina, but maybe he didn't realize the damage being done to Johan while he was left alone. Speaking of which, it's just not clear how long Johan was left on his own, or how on his own he was. As was noted, was there enough food in the house when Bonaparta came to keep a child fed? It seems like it must've been awhile, for her to lose count of her meals, although under such sensory deprivation, maybe not as long as just being locked in a cell. But did anyone check on him? And the accounts of the critical moment vary. Nina remembers Johan being dragged down the stairs, but not Jomama, and her memories in the car seem like she's alone. The old man (who couldn't tell if a child in a dress and bows was a boy or girl) said mother and child were taken at the same time. But if Jomama didn't go with them, when did she leave and why, and where did she go? And when did she tell them they were on their own? Did she come back after Nina returned and then leave them? I just can't piece it together. Speaking of which, InTheGarden sent me the timeline she'd gleaned from the manga/anime, and there are a lot of discrepancies between that and the book. :/ |
|
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 291 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63501401 01-30-2012 03:11 PM I think I'll go for separate posts for this one: @JohanT I was thinking that maybe Bonaparta was trying to keep them from enacting revenge, but it failed spectacularly. My idea is that if Bonaparta was thinking that either the one being kept was going to be the one that will enact revenge, or the one being given up will. Depending on his thought process, he decided to give one a sort of "final lesson" to teach to the other. Now whether or not he thought that lesson would be better to teach to the one who would take revenge or the one who wouldn't is a different matter. As for the thesis/antitheis thing, I think it's a matter of interpretation. Nice thought about the scenery of the doomsday, though. As for your last question, I think that humans would want to reinforce their identities through their children, as a way of immortalizing themselves. But if they themselves do not have their own name, then how can their children? |
|
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 292 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63503957 01-30-2012 03:16 PM @Gina Remember when Bonaparta was drawing her and said that one of the children growing inside her will get revenge? That's what I'm referring to. While she may not have actually chosen a child consciously, she may have had a subconsious attitude toward both of them. Well, it could be a mixture of that and the explanation I gave to JohanT. Or maybe you're right. Who knows? *curses Urasawa for not giving answers* We'll just attribute the inconsistences to imperfect memory. That works, right? *shifts eyes* InTheGarden's not dead! Yay! XD So, what kind of discrepencies? Does it have to do with events or dates? If it's dates, then we can attribute that to Writers Can't Do Math. :P |
|
| VadaH Posts: 9 Registered: 12-23-2011 Message 293 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63490863 02-01-2012 06:03 PM Oh, absolutely. They don't push drugs in the series, that is his view of American Psychiatrists. Again, I don't know how things are done in Europe(or during that time frame), but in the US psychiatrists make about twice as much as a PHD psychologist. Due to this, no insurance company would pay for someone to see a psychiatrist for talk therapy (aside from the fact that most psychiatrists are not trained to do talk or behavior therapy unless that is something they specifically seek out), so it is somewhat unrealistic to have a psychiatrist doing talk therapy(though many shows and movies will have them in this role because there is this belief that they are the premier experts in the field, which isn't accurate). And it is funny that Reichwein calls it hogwash but does it anyway, and even knows how to do it :-p I will let everyone know what his thoughts are when we get that far. |
|
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 294 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63437243 02-03-2012 03:39 PM @VadaH LOL, gotta love Reichwein. XD @Gina A little belated, but I don't check my e-mail very often, so.... Yay pics! Suk and Lipsky look so sad. I wanna give them hugs. Ranke is just scary-looking. XD I didn't have time to see if there were any changes in the main book, but I did read that little afterword. I'll use spoiler tags since I don't want to spoil anything to those who haven't had a chance to read it yet.
|
|
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 295 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63576129 02-03-2012 09:57 PM The new phonebooks are here! The new phonebooks are here! :-D I didn't even realize that the monster had grown this big! Your idea made me chuckle. I think I'll hold off a bit to see what other people think before I comment though. It's amazing how many questions those few pages raised though. |
|
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 296 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63581879 02-05-2012 04:41 PM New phonebooks? ...Is that a reference I'm not getting? :P I've refined my theory a bit...
|
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 297 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63517965 02-05-2012 05:35 PM TophBeiFong wrote: I think I'll go for separate posts for this one: @JohanT I was thinking that maybe Bonaparta was trying to keep them from enacting revenge, but it failed spectacularly. My idea is that if Bonaparta was thinking that either the one being kept was going to be the one that will enact revenge, or the one being given up will. Depending on his thought process, he decided to give one a sort of "final lesson" to teach to the other. Now whether or not he thought that lesson would be better to teach to the one who would take revenge or the one who wouldn't is a different matter. Interesting. However, Bonaparta does tell Nina to forget all that she has seen. In this, there is not much of an indication that he wished for her to relay her experience to the other twin. Did he want the twin abandoned in the home to enact the revenge instead? Did he feel that being both abandoned and somehow "unworthy to carry out vengeance" were two negatives, and thus would make a positive with regards to the mother's own wish? I personally felt that though he wanted to face judgement, he did not want it to be the twins themselves passing it. As extentions of the mother, whom he loved, I am sure that he wished to spare them from the mother's hatred. And I think this is very relevant to what you were saying about children carrying on their parents' identities. Bonaparta is, in a sense, attempting to erase this notion. As for the thesis/antithesis argument, I do agree that interpretation varies. However, if you look at the two words, they themselves are defined by each other. But what's interesting is that a thesis may stand on its own. The antithesis, on the other hand, is simply the addition of a negative to that thesis, and thus is dependent on the context of that specific thesis... :D Oh well, whatever. We don't need to go into depth on this. As for your last question, I think that humans would want to reinforce their identities through their children, as a way of immortalizing themselves. But if they themselves do not have their own name, then how can their children? Well, what I was asking previously was about preference. Naturally they would want both, but which would they look to as their ideal way of reinforcing identity? If they had a choice between holding their identity within themselves and passing on their identity to their children, which would they choose? I am of the mind that it is the former. Ugh, I need to read the new version (thank you, Gina, for working on it)! I have not gotten around to it yet. And sadly, with my nasty habit of peeking through spoiler tags, I am now pleasantly spoiled :D. | |
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 298 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63604327 02-05-2012 06:11 PM Just a silly reference to Steve Martin in The Jerk, and the size of the file. :)
Btw, Weber met Nagasaki at the award party in 2000, although it didn't say what month. If it was in December, then the Kottman killings had already taken place and he was just dropping hints of what he already suspected was the case. |
|
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 299 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63605023 02-05-2012 07:06 PM Crap, I forgot about Bonaparta telling her to forget everything she saw. But perhaps he wanted her to forget the murder and not the part about not becoming monsters. I was saying that they would pick reinforcing their identities on their children rather than themselves, which is why I brought up that comment about perpetuating namelessness. |
|
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 300 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63606385 02-05-2012 07:23 PM TophBeiFong wrote: Crap, I forgot about Bonaparta telling her to forget everything she saw. But perhaps he wanted her to forget the murder and not the part about not becoming monsters. Hahaha, and if that was in fact the case, it would be quite a blunder on Bonaparta's part, for the statement about 'not becoming monsters" seems to have been omitted in Nina's re-telling of the events. She remembered the murder, but forgot to tell Johan the most crucial part! Lol I was saying that they would pick reinforcing their identities on their children rather than themselves, which is why I brought up that comment about perpetuating namelessness. Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. Personally, I see identity as a reinforcer of being, and the greatest reinforcer of being is the body and personality you inhabit. Children are extensions of identity, but no more than that, in my opinion. While they carry it on, they cannot accomplish that feeling of existence that can be felt when you yourself are the vessel of your own identity. | |
6
Spoiler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)